![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Hey folks, I made an edit today and it was immediately removed. I noticed the hidden, comment to talk about edits here first, so I thought I'd post something here. I think it would be useful to neutrally state/cite recent scholars who hold a dissenting view from the view that is currently advanced on the cite. I cited three works from serious scholars from the last five years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorenhead ( talk • contribs) 23:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
It is often claimed that all four gospels were anonymous (the modern names were added in the 2nd century), and that almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission. [1] However, several recent scholars have challenged this claim and have argued that the gospels were not originally anonymous and that they instead bear eyewitness testimony. [2] [3] [4]
References
{{
citation}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link). (pg. 12-23)
{{
cite book}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
come to thier own conclusion. It toes the line of academic consensus. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The case against the majority proceeds with negative and positive arguments.Tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
sure, He claims the majority view holds to the anonymous view. But he is another independent scholarly work at the Ivy League level who's work cites still other scholars who support this view. Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community ( WP.FRINGELEVEL. Citing the scholars and reveiw article seem like a great way to do that. One important barometer for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer-reviewed research on the subject. The article I've pointed you to above, and the number of peer-reviewed articles cited within them, demonstrate that this is a notable possition to mentino.
Regarding when a "fringe view" can be included, wikipedia gives several criteria. WP.Fringe- The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. WP.V- If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight.
Reliable sources disagree about this. The best thing to do would be to maintain a neutral point of view, cite the sources, and present what the vairious sources say.. Lorenhead ( talk) 02:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Despite the traditional ascriptions all four are anonymous, and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses;[32] a few conservative scholars defend the traditional authorship, but for a variety of reasons the majority of scholars have abandoned this view or hold it only tenuously.[33]So your edit is unnecessary. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@Achar Sva, why did you revert my recent edit? Lorenhead ( talk) 03:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Inacurate - the anonymity of the gospels is a fact, not an opinion. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
"first recipients presumably knew the author's identity." (Keener 407)– it's a presumption – as for the other authors mentioned,
Lucian's "Life of Demonax," Josephus "Jewish Antiquities," Tacitus's "Agricola," Suetonius' "Otho,"the first recipients did know the author's identity – Epinoia ( talk) 16:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Gathercole and others may believe that, but they failed to convince the scholars.
If it would be so, you have to show why such "considerable evidence" failed to convince the scholars. As far as I know, "Papias meant our Gospel of Matthew" is considered false by the majority of scholars. So, it could be that "the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew" is a fringe view (as most editors here believe), or that it is a minority view (as you and Davidbena believe). Anyway, we could not trust Edwards to represent the majority view when he himself was advised by his mentors not to publish his book and stated that the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is seen as a trap. No amount of original research would suffice to make it appear as the majority view, since Wikipedia does not establish the correctness of a scholarly view, it merely quotes mainstream scholars who support or refute it. So, it is futile to convince the Wikipedians of the correctness of Edwards's arguments, since it is not for Wikipedians to make that call, but for scholars who live by publish or perish. Wikipedians are merely the scribes of mainstream scholars. Wikipedia isn't a channel for publishing original research nor a discussion forum for boosting one's academic status nor an arena where scholars decide which should be the mainstream view. We trust the academia to pass such judgment, it is not Wikipedia's task to tell to the academia which new insight should become their majority view. As User:Benjiboi stated, "Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed." Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Quoting myself Tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Current scholarship opposes the author Pitre on every account. His stance is fundamentalist at best. His writing style is that of a high school freshman. ... If you want to learn something, read a book by Dr. Paula Fredriksen or even Dr. John P. Meier, who may have taught Brant Pitre while he was a student at Notre Dame. It's obvious that Pitre didn't pay much attention in class.
— T. Bill, Amazon.com
Most Catholics are aware that the New American Bible is authorized by the USCCB. It's the Catholic Bible.
What does the NAB say on the subject of the gospel's authorship?
Matthew: "the unknown author." NAB 1008
Mark: "although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading 'According to Mark,' in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark.." (NAB 1064)
Luke: "Early Christian tradition, from the late 2nd century on, identifies the author of this gospel...as Luke." (This means roughly 175 years had passed before an author's name was affixed to this gospel.
"And the prologue to this gospel makes it clear that Luke was not is not part of the 1st generation of Christian disciples, but is himself dependent on traditions." NAB 1091
On John: "Although tradition identifies [the author] as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this." (1136)
In other words, the New American Bible states that we-simply-do-not-know who's the author of any of the four gospels. The NAB does not say, or imply, that the majority of Biblical scholars has it wrong that the gospels are works that are fundamentally anonymous.
If you're a Catholic, you no doubt have your own copy of the NAB, and can check this out for yourself.
— religio criticus, Amazon.com
Quoted by Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
An editor, 7 hours old, who knows links like WP:CHOPSY? Who goes straight to the Gospel of John, like what-was-his-name-again? Right... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Let's be specific: Lorenhead's edit diff changed
All four were anonymous (the modern names were added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission. [1]
into
It is often claimed that all four gospels were anonymous (the modern names were added in the 2nd century), and that almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission. [1] However, several recent scholars have challenged this claim and have argued that the gospels were not originally anonymous and that they instead bear eyewitness testimony. [2] [3] [4]
}}
References
{{
citation}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link). (pg. 12-23)
{{
cite book}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
The
WP:LEAD summarizes the article; that's not the case, this info is not in the article; the lead is being used to develop an argument. This is clearly shown by the
WP:EDITORIALIZING at work here: "It is often claimed," "however." "Claimed" is false rhetorics, as in "That's just yourr opinion." Not al "opinions" have equal weight, and in this case, the majority is not to be introduced with a "it's just a claim"-disclaimer, and
WP:UNDUE weight for a minority-view which isn't even mentioned in the article. No
WP:CONSENSUS for this edit, but [[WP: DONTGETIT] behaviour.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
04:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The term "claimed" puts into question three different pieces of info. Sloppy editing to push a specific point of view.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
04:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
So my edits have been reverted for no reason. I brought citations and all. Can a 3rd person take a look at this, please? -- GoogleMeNowPlease ( talk) 13:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
cholars have a consensus on the general outline of Jesus' life found in the gospels
though, scholars are quick to note
@ Red Slash: Since you reverted me on this... everything in the phrasing of that section is subtly favoring the admittedly popular but scholarly-fringe argument that the early Church "had it right." In general, if you add "Modern mainstream scholars hold" to a sentence on Wikipedia, you don't need to include that phrase, you can just state it normally rather than over-qualify it.
I'm really not sure an extended section on the "historiography" of older beliefs is due weight; that seems material more suited for Augustinian hypothesis, Hebrew Gospel hypothesis, and so on. Jonathan Bernier in particular appears to be a no-name, and the phrasing is wildly misleading as it seems to describe the case against the traditional ascriptions getting weaker over time, rather than stronger via the trick of picking on one random scholar who picked a very late date. Richard Bauckham is a good source, I've been sourcing from a book of Bauckham's myself recently, but he is in the scholarly minority on his claims of earlier dates, and even he doesn't hold to the traditional ascriptions for the synoptics - which the section occludes by including him in a group that does, and acts as if he agrees on everything. If you are in favor of keeping it, then it needs to be sourced to more "neutral" sources as well, which I suspect would make it read more incendiary if it covers the scholarly debate. I'd much rather lead with the consensus view, and stick the historiographical debate elsewhere to keep this on-topic; if you think we should include it anyway, then it should be off in its own section, and detail all the reasons why modern scholars aren't crazy, rather than the added section's slant of acting as if it was solely the destruction of the Temple argument. SnowFire ( talk) 02:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
WP:NPOV means WP:NOTNEUTRAL. We kowtow to WP:RS/AC: in any major US university it is taught that the NT gospels are fundamentally anonymous. And that they were written at least 30 or 40 years after Jesus died.
So, to answer your charge: this is not a bug, it's a feature. tgeorgescu ( talk) 11:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
No, really: if there is a US state university which teaches for a fact that NT gospels are not fundamentally anonymous, that would be a wonder (meaning a full professor teaches it to its students, as opposed to being taught by some fleeting teaching assistant). If there is an Ivy League university which does that, it would be a wonder of wonders.
If you're not yet convinced, see Ham, Ken; Hall, Greg; Beemer, Britt (2011). Already Compromised. Master Books. ISBN 978-0-89051-607-2. And Ham, Ken; Beemer, Britt; Hillard, Todd (2009). Already Gone: Why your kids will quit church and what you can do to stop it. New Leaf Publishing Group, Incorporated. ISBN 978-1-61458-003-4.
These might sound like conspiracy theories, but the basic facts are true: WP:SCHOLARSHIP, meaning Bible scholarship, has moved a lot from the position of the fundamentalist/traditionalist Christian true believer. tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
The early church historians were unanimous in assigning the gospels to the two apostles Matthew and John, and two followers of apostles, John Mark and Luke. Therefore they assumed an early dating of the gospels. Taking their lead from Papias (c. 110) the early church historians all testify to Matthew being the first gospel and originally written in Aramaic (or Hebrew). Mark was generally claimed to be the second written and composed when Peter was still alive (i.e. the 50s or 60s). Luke was thought to be written third, followed at last by John, believed to be written by the apostle at a very old age with the expressed goal of adding information that was missing in the synoptic gospels (i.e 80's-90's).[30]
With the rise of historical criticism in the late 19th century the scholarly consensus regarding the dating of gospels started to change. The early historical critics believed that the gospels should be understood as folk literature not composed by a single author but instead written and re-written by a community over a long period of time. Using form criticism they broke down the gospels into pieces (pericopes) with the aim of discovering when and why different stories where added to a gospel tradition that later evolved into a written gospel. This hypothesis favoured late dating's of the gospels to give the supposed communities time to create and evolve the gospels. The leading early higher critic Ferdinand Christian Baur for example proposed the dating of the gospel of John to around 195AD.[31]
During the 20th century, the idea of a late dating of the gospels started to lose ground in the light of new manuscript discoveries and scholarly studies. These new discoveries made it improbable that the gospels could be dated later than around the year 100. With the latter time limit set, the scholarly focused shifted to determining the earliest possible dating of the gospels.[32]
Based primarily on the idea of Markan priority and the belief that Mark 13 alludes to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem most scholarly today places the creation of the gospels in their written form to about ca. 65-100AD, with redactions of the text beings made into the 3rd century.[33][34]
A minority of mostly conservative scholars believe that the gospels should be understood as biographies based on eyewitness accounts and not folk literature. These scholars generally defend the early datings and the traditional ascriptions of the gospels. Starting from the final decade of the 20th century this minority has become more vocal and include such scholars as Martin Hengel, James D. G. Dunn and Richard Bauckham.[35][36][37] For a variety of reasons the majority of scholars do not agree with their conclusions.[38]
Modern mainstream scholars hold that like the rest of the New Testament, the four gospels were written in Greek,[39] with the Gospel of Mark probably dating from c. AD 66–70,[5] Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90,[6] and John AD 90–110.[7] Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.[8]
There are two billion nominal Christians in the worldcut no ice. In the mainstream academia the idea that NT gospels were written by Jesus's apostles is somewhere very close to dead in the water. Wikipedia is heavily based upon WP:SCHOLARSHIP and has no reason to privilege fundamentalist/traditionalist Christians over Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, Taoists, Confucianists, Shintoists, and Satanists. Liberal Christianity made peace for a long time with historical criticism. In short: Wikipedia sides with real scholarship over a naive acceptance of religious dogmas. So, yeah, the real issue is subtly undermining the academic consensus, stated in the voice of Wikipedia. It's not our task to WP:RGW. About
one would expect the views of people within the first century after Jesus's death to be the first views presented: we might do that, provided we state very clearly that those people were flat out wrong. Giving the lie to modern mainstream scholars, speaking nigh-unanimously, is what Conservapedia can do, while Wikipedia can't do.
It is the stated goal of Wikipedia to mirror the current consensus of mainstream scholarship – in the words of WP:NOT, "accepted knowledge". Self-evidently, the mainstream view of what is accepted knowledge in a discipline has the largest following and as such the most due weight in the literature. The encyclopedia does not act as an advocate for, or passionately promote, pioneering minority theories that are currently controversial (i.e soapboxing), even if there is a slim chance beliefs on the margin may eventually gain wide consensus (as happened with the proposals of the round Earth in Archaic Periods disambiguation needed and continental drift before the mechanism of plate tectonics, two classic examples of cutting edge views once deemed fringe theories that turned out to be justified). Wikipedia acknowledges diverse viewpoints on contemporary controversies, but represents them in proportion to their prevalence (or due weight) among serious scholars and reporters with reputations of responsibility and reliability. Wikipedia may in some cases limit its mention of theories understood to be fringe to specific articles about those theories, and remove their mention from other articles, per the one way principle.
In summary, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for people to advocate pet points of view, nor is Wikipedia in the business of adjudicating which pet points of view have a potential for subsequent wide acceptance in the future. Some marginal theories are fringe science and some are pseudo-science, but Wikipedia is not in the business of calling the shots as to where these stand except where reliable sources clarify those differences. Thus, Wikipedia is academically conservative, as is fitting for a standard reference work.
— WP:FLAT
I find the sentence "none were written by eyewitnesses" troubling. The simple reason is because in the ancient world, most sources describing events were not written by eyewitnesses. As such, even though scholars do not think that Plutarch, Tacitus, Illiad were written by eyewitnesses, we do not need to mention it. We can and probably should mention that the traditional attributions are challenged by scholars, but "none were written by eyewitnesses" feels more like a polemic. From an objective standpoint, in the ancient world, all sources are assumed not to have been written by eyewitnesses unless otherwise stated. Eyewitness testimony is exceedingly rare in the ancient world. --
BiblicalScholarship (
talk)
00:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:SOCK comments stricken
In that case: which IP?
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
07:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I've filed an SPI at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoogleMeNowPlease.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
08:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I never heard that before, and I read many books of mainstream Bible scholarship. Sheer WP:FRINGE and sheer WP:OR (no WP:RS being WP:CITED for such astounding claim). Cannot pass WP:REDFLAG.
Morals: Littlewellknowfacts, either WP:CITE WP:RS or take your business elsewhere. tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
@ Gospel Romance: [1] by Curt Parton is not WP:RS. See also WP:RNPOV: Wikipedia isn't a website for WP:SOAPBOXING the news of the gospel.
Mainstream historians have no reason to believe that the words the NT gospels attribute to Jesus are verbatim quotes from his speeches.
Also, the consensus of the Church Fathers in Antiquity can by no means be translated into a consensus of modern historians.
Parton believes that the "four gospels" are "genuine", while modern Bible scholars regard the Gospel of John as historically highly dubious (that is, Jesus from the Gospel of John bears little resemblance to the historical Jesus). tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
@ Jundonbee: Your edit is both WP:FRINGE and WP:OR. tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any credible scholars other than Ehrman who make the argument the passage in question was "altered." The γεννησις reading is used by the Church Fathers and many early manuscipts. I think this citation should either be removed or at least clarified to be Ehrman's opinion. Divus303 ( talk) 18:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I have devoted all my attention so far to textual variants involving Jesus’ relationship to Joseph in Luke and John. Joseph is never called Jesus’ “father” or “parent” in Matthew’s Gospel, but given the circumstance that Matthew also records a birth story, one might expect to find some kinds of orthodox corruption here as well. We have already seen that the scribe of the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, apparently through carelessness, presents a potentially adoptionistic variation of Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew 1:16. It is striking that other witnesses supply different variations of precisely the same verse, and that these variations serve rather well to stress orthodox notions concerning Jesus’ birth. The text of most manuscripts reads “Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom (fern.) was born Jesus, who is called the Christ.” But several witnesses of the so-called Caesarean text read “Jacob begot Joseph, to whom being betrothed, a virgin Mary begot Jesus, who is called the Christ” (Θ f13 OL arm [syrc]). The Caesarean changes are patently orthodox: now the text explicitly calls Mary a “virgin” (Image) and it no longer calls Joseph her “husband” (Image) but her “betrothed” (ImageImage). These changes serve not only to keep the text in line with the rest of the story (esp. vv. 18–25), but also to eliminate the possibility of misconstrual. Mary was not yet living with a man as his wife, she was merely his betrothed; and she was still a virgin, even though pregnant.69 It should be added that there is little reason to suppose the Caesarean reading to be original. Not only does it lack early and widespread support, it also fails to pass muster on the grounds of transcriptional probabilities. Given the story of verses 18-25, who would have wanted to change the perfectly innocuous Caesarean text of verse 16 into one that could be understood as problematic (by calling Joseph Mary’s Image and by eliminating the word “virgin”)?70 This Caesarean reading is thus better explained as an early modification of the other, an orthodox corruption that serves to circumvent an adoptionistic construal of the text.71
46. See the discussions of Bruce M. Metzger, “The Text of Matthew 1:16”; id., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2–7; Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, 61–64; and Alexander Globe, “Some Doctrinal Variants in Matthew 1 and Luke 2, and the Authority of the Neutral Text,” 63–66.
69. The term image of course, could simply mean “young woman” or “maiden.” But in the writings of the early church, especially when the term came to be applied to Jesus’ mother, it took on the modern connotations of the word “virgin,” designating, that is, a woman who had never engaged in sexual intercourse. See LPGL 1037–38.
70. In addition to the works cited in note 46 above (i.e., Metzger, Brown, and Globe), see the penetrating discussion of Theodor Zahn, Das Evangelium des Matthäus, 66–67, n. 34.
71. Other variants that function to protect the notion of the virgin birth in Matthew 1 modify passages that speak of Mary as Joseph’s wife (”wife” is changed to “betrothed” or “companion” in Syriac, Ethiopic, and Diatesseronic witnesses of Matt 1:20; it is changed to “Mary” or “her” in Syriac, Coptic, and Latin witnesses of Matt 1:24); so too descriptions of Joseph as Mary’s husband are modified in the Syriac traditions of Matthew 1:19. On these, compare Globe, “Some Doctrinal Variants.” Globe sees similar forces at work behind the changes of Matthew 1:18 (omit “before they came together”) and 1:25 (change “he did not know her until . . .”), only here, it is the orthodox desire to preserve the notion of Mary’s perpetual virginity that is at work. The confluence of versional support (e.g., Syriac and Latin as independent traditions) demonstrates an early date for such modifications. A similar motivation may lay behind the omission of image from Luke 2:7 in manuscript W. Now Jesus is not called Mary’s firstborn son.
— Ehrman, loc. cit.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Hey folks, I made an edit today and it was immediately removed. I noticed the hidden, comment to talk about edits here first, so I thought I'd post something here. I think it would be useful to neutrally state/cite recent scholars who hold a dissenting view from the view that is currently advanced on the cite. I cited three works from serious scholars from the last five years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorenhead ( talk • contribs) 23:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
It is often claimed that all four gospels were anonymous (the modern names were added in the 2nd century), and that almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission. [1] However, several recent scholars have challenged this claim and have argued that the gospels were not originally anonymous and that they instead bear eyewitness testimony. [2] [3] [4]
References
{{
citation}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link). (pg. 12-23)
{{
cite book}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
come to thier own conclusion. It toes the line of academic consensus. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The case against the majority proceeds with negative and positive arguments.Tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
sure, He claims the majority view holds to the anonymous view. But he is another independent scholarly work at the Ivy League level who's work cites still other scholars who support this view. Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community ( WP.FRINGELEVEL. Citing the scholars and reveiw article seem like a great way to do that. One important barometer for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer-reviewed research on the subject. The article I've pointed you to above, and the number of peer-reviewed articles cited within them, demonstrate that this is a notable possition to mentino.
Regarding when a "fringe view" can be included, wikipedia gives several criteria. WP.Fringe- The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. WP.V- If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight.
Reliable sources disagree about this. The best thing to do would be to maintain a neutral point of view, cite the sources, and present what the vairious sources say.. Lorenhead ( talk) 02:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Despite the traditional ascriptions all four are anonymous, and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses;[32] a few conservative scholars defend the traditional authorship, but for a variety of reasons the majority of scholars have abandoned this view or hold it only tenuously.[33]So your edit is unnecessary. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@Achar Sva, why did you revert my recent edit? Lorenhead ( talk) 03:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Inacurate - the anonymity of the gospels is a fact, not an opinion. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
"first recipients presumably knew the author's identity." (Keener 407)– it's a presumption – as for the other authors mentioned,
Lucian's "Life of Demonax," Josephus "Jewish Antiquities," Tacitus's "Agricola," Suetonius' "Otho,"the first recipients did know the author's identity – Epinoia ( talk) 16:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Gathercole and others may believe that, but they failed to convince the scholars.
If it would be so, you have to show why such "considerable evidence" failed to convince the scholars. As far as I know, "Papias meant our Gospel of Matthew" is considered false by the majority of scholars. So, it could be that "the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew" is a fringe view (as most editors here believe), or that it is a minority view (as you and Davidbena believe). Anyway, we could not trust Edwards to represent the majority view when he himself was advised by his mentors not to publish his book and stated that the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is seen as a trap. No amount of original research would suffice to make it appear as the majority view, since Wikipedia does not establish the correctness of a scholarly view, it merely quotes mainstream scholars who support or refute it. So, it is futile to convince the Wikipedians of the correctness of Edwards's arguments, since it is not for Wikipedians to make that call, but for scholars who live by publish or perish. Wikipedians are merely the scribes of mainstream scholars. Wikipedia isn't a channel for publishing original research nor a discussion forum for boosting one's academic status nor an arena where scholars decide which should be the mainstream view. We trust the academia to pass such judgment, it is not Wikipedia's task to tell to the academia which new insight should become their majority view. As User:Benjiboi stated, "Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed." Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Quoting myself Tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Current scholarship opposes the author Pitre on every account. His stance is fundamentalist at best. His writing style is that of a high school freshman. ... If you want to learn something, read a book by Dr. Paula Fredriksen or even Dr. John P. Meier, who may have taught Brant Pitre while he was a student at Notre Dame. It's obvious that Pitre didn't pay much attention in class.
— T. Bill, Amazon.com
Most Catholics are aware that the New American Bible is authorized by the USCCB. It's the Catholic Bible.
What does the NAB say on the subject of the gospel's authorship?
Matthew: "the unknown author." NAB 1008
Mark: "although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading 'According to Mark,' in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark.." (NAB 1064)
Luke: "Early Christian tradition, from the late 2nd century on, identifies the author of this gospel...as Luke." (This means roughly 175 years had passed before an author's name was affixed to this gospel.
"And the prologue to this gospel makes it clear that Luke was not is not part of the 1st generation of Christian disciples, but is himself dependent on traditions." NAB 1091
On John: "Although tradition identifies [the author] as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this." (1136)
In other words, the New American Bible states that we-simply-do-not-know who's the author of any of the four gospels. The NAB does not say, or imply, that the majority of Biblical scholars has it wrong that the gospels are works that are fundamentally anonymous.
If you're a Catholic, you no doubt have your own copy of the NAB, and can check this out for yourself.
— religio criticus, Amazon.com
Quoted by Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
An editor, 7 hours old, who knows links like WP:CHOPSY? Who goes straight to the Gospel of John, like what-was-his-name-again? Right... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Let's be specific: Lorenhead's edit diff changed
All four were anonymous (the modern names were added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission. [1]
into
It is often claimed that all four gospels were anonymous (the modern names were added in the 2nd century), and that almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission. [1] However, several recent scholars have challenged this claim and have argued that the gospels were not originally anonymous and that they instead bear eyewitness testimony. [2] [3] [4]
}}
References
{{
citation}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link). (pg. 12-23)
{{
cite book}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
The
WP:LEAD summarizes the article; that's not the case, this info is not in the article; the lead is being used to develop an argument. This is clearly shown by the
WP:EDITORIALIZING at work here: "It is often claimed," "however." "Claimed" is false rhetorics, as in "That's just yourr opinion." Not al "opinions" have equal weight, and in this case, the majority is not to be introduced with a "it's just a claim"-disclaimer, and
WP:UNDUE weight for a minority-view which isn't even mentioned in the article. No
WP:CONSENSUS for this edit, but [[WP: DONTGETIT] behaviour.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
04:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The term "claimed" puts into question three different pieces of info. Sloppy editing to push a specific point of view.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
04:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
So my edits have been reverted for no reason. I brought citations and all. Can a 3rd person take a look at this, please? -- GoogleMeNowPlease ( talk) 13:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
cholars have a consensus on the general outline of Jesus' life found in the gospels
though, scholars are quick to note
@ Red Slash: Since you reverted me on this... everything in the phrasing of that section is subtly favoring the admittedly popular but scholarly-fringe argument that the early Church "had it right." In general, if you add "Modern mainstream scholars hold" to a sentence on Wikipedia, you don't need to include that phrase, you can just state it normally rather than over-qualify it.
I'm really not sure an extended section on the "historiography" of older beliefs is due weight; that seems material more suited for Augustinian hypothesis, Hebrew Gospel hypothesis, and so on. Jonathan Bernier in particular appears to be a no-name, and the phrasing is wildly misleading as it seems to describe the case against the traditional ascriptions getting weaker over time, rather than stronger via the trick of picking on one random scholar who picked a very late date. Richard Bauckham is a good source, I've been sourcing from a book of Bauckham's myself recently, but he is in the scholarly minority on his claims of earlier dates, and even he doesn't hold to the traditional ascriptions for the synoptics - which the section occludes by including him in a group that does, and acts as if he agrees on everything. If you are in favor of keeping it, then it needs to be sourced to more "neutral" sources as well, which I suspect would make it read more incendiary if it covers the scholarly debate. I'd much rather lead with the consensus view, and stick the historiographical debate elsewhere to keep this on-topic; if you think we should include it anyway, then it should be off in its own section, and detail all the reasons why modern scholars aren't crazy, rather than the added section's slant of acting as if it was solely the destruction of the Temple argument. SnowFire ( talk) 02:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
WP:NPOV means WP:NOTNEUTRAL. We kowtow to WP:RS/AC: in any major US university it is taught that the NT gospels are fundamentally anonymous. And that they were written at least 30 or 40 years after Jesus died.
So, to answer your charge: this is not a bug, it's a feature. tgeorgescu ( talk) 11:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
No, really: if there is a US state university which teaches for a fact that NT gospels are not fundamentally anonymous, that would be a wonder (meaning a full professor teaches it to its students, as opposed to being taught by some fleeting teaching assistant). If there is an Ivy League university which does that, it would be a wonder of wonders.
If you're not yet convinced, see Ham, Ken; Hall, Greg; Beemer, Britt (2011). Already Compromised. Master Books. ISBN 978-0-89051-607-2. And Ham, Ken; Beemer, Britt; Hillard, Todd (2009). Already Gone: Why your kids will quit church and what you can do to stop it. New Leaf Publishing Group, Incorporated. ISBN 978-1-61458-003-4.
These might sound like conspiracy theories, but the basic facts are true: WP:SCHOLARSHIP, meaning Bible scholarship, has moved a lot from the position of the fundamentalist/traditionalist Christian true believer. tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
The early church historians were unanimous in assigning the gospels to the two apostles Matthew and John, and two followers of apostles, John Mark and Luke. Therefore they assumed an early dating of the gospels. Taking their lead from Papias (c. 110) the early church historians all testify to Matthew being the first gospel and originally written in Aramaic (or Hebrew). Mark was generally claimed to be the second written and composed when Peter was still alive (i.e. the 50s or 60s). Luke was thought to be written third, followed at last by John, believed to be written by the apostle at a very old age with the expressed goal of adding information that was missing in the synoptic gospels (i.e 80's-90's).[30]
With the rise of historical criticism in the late 19th century the scholarly consensus regarding the dating of gospels started to change. The early historical critics believed that the gospels should be understood as folk literature not composed by a single author but instead written and re-written by a community over a long period of time. Using form criticism they broke down the gospels into pieces (pericopes) with the aim of discovering when and why different stories where added to a gospel tradition that later evolved into a written gospel. This hypothesis favoured late dating's of the gospels to give the supposed communities time to create and evolve the gospels. The leading early higher critic Ferdinand Christian Baur for example proposed the dating of the gospel of John to around 195AD.[31]
During the 20th century, the idea of a late dating of the gospels started to lose ground in the light of new manuscript discoveries and scholarly studies. These new discoveries made it improbable that the gospels could be dated later than around the year 100. With the latter time limit set, the scholarly focused shifted to determining the earliest possible dating of the gospels.[32]
Based primarily on the idea of Markan priority and the belief that Mark 13 alludes to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem most scholarly today places the creation of the gospels in their written form to about ca. 65-100AD, with redactions of the text beings made into the 3rd century.[33][34]
A minority of mostly conservative scholars believe that the gospels should be understood as biographies based on eyewitness accounts and not folk literature. These scholars generally defend the early datings and the traditional ascriptions of the gospels. Starting from the final decade of the 20th century this minority has become more vocal and include such scholars as Martin Hengel, James D. G. Dunn and Richard Bauckham.[35][36][37] For a variety of reasons the majority of scholars do not agree with their conclusions.[38]
Modern mainstream scholars hold that like the rest of the New Testament, the four gospels were written in Greek,[39] with the Gospel of Mark probably dating from c. AD 66–70,[5] Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90,[6] and John AD 90–110.[7] Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.[8]
There are two billion nominal Christians in the worldcut no ice. In the mainstream academia the idea that NT gospels were written by Jesus's apostles is somewhere very close to dead in the water. Wikipedia is heavily based upon WP:SCHOLARSHIP and has no reason to privilege fundamentalist/traditionalist Christians over Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, Taoists, Confucianists, Shintoists, and Satanists. Liberal Christianity made peace for a long time with historical criticism. In short: Wikipedia sides with real scholarship over a naive acceptance of religious dogmas. So, yeah, the real issue is subtly undermining the academic consensus, stated in the voice of Wikipedia. It's not our task to WP:RGW. About
one would expect the views of people within the first century after Jesus's death to be the first views presented: we might do that, provided we state very clearly that those people were flat out wrong. Giving the lie to modern mainstream scholars, speaking nigh-unanimously, is what Conservapedia can do, while Wikipedia can't do.
It is the stated goal of Wikipedia to mirror the current consensus of mainstream scholarship – in the words of WP:NOT, "accepted knowledge". Self-evidently, the mainstream view of what is accepted knowledge in a discipline has the largest following and as such the most due weight in the literature. The encyclopedia does not act as an advocate for, or passionately promote, pioneering minority theories that are currently controversial (i.e soapboxing), even if there is a slim chance beliefs on the margin may eventually gain wide consensus (as happened with the proposals of the round Earth in Archaic Periods disambiguation needed and continental drift before the mechanism of plate tectonics, two classic examples of cutting edge views once deemed fringe theories that turned out to be justified). Wikipedia acknowledges diverse viewpoints on contemporary controversies, but represents them in proportion to their prevalence (or due weight) among serious scholars and reporters with reputations of responsibility and reliability. Wikipedia may in some cases limit its mention of theories understood to be fringe to specific articles about those theories, and remove their mention from other articles, per the one way principle.
In summary, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for people to advocate pet points of view, nor is Wikipedia in the business of adjudicating which pet points of view have a potential for subsequent wide acceptance in the future. Some marginal theories are fringe science and some are pseudo-science, but Wikipedia is not in the business of calling the shots as to where these stand except where reliable sources clarify those differences. Thus, Wikipedia is academically conservative, as is fitting for a standard reference work.
— WP:FLAT
I find the sentence "none were written by eyewitnesses" troubling. The simple reason is because in the ancient world, most sources describing events were not written by eyewitnesses. As such, even though scholars do not think that Plutarch, Tacitus, Illiad were written by eyewitnesses, we do not need to mention it. We can and probably should mention that the traditional attributions are challenged by scholars, but "none were written by eyewitnesses" feels more like a polemic. From an objective standpoint, in the ancient world, all sources are assumed not to have been written by eyewitnesses unless otherwise stated. Eyewitness testimony is exceedingly rare in the ancient world. --
BiblicalScholarship (
talk)
00:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:SOCK comments stricken
In that case: which IP?
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
07:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I've filed an SPI at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoogleMeNowPlease.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
08:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I never heard that before, and I read many books of mainstream Bible scholarship. Sheer WP:FRINGE and sheer WP:OR (no WP:RS being WP:CITED for such astounding claim). Cannot pass WP:REDFLAG.
Morals: Littlewellknowfacts, either WP:CITE WP:RS or take your business elsewhere. tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
@ Gospel Romance: [1] by Curt Parton is not WP:RS. See also WP:RNPOV: Wikipedia isn't a website for WP:SOAPBOXING the news of the gospel.
Mainstream historians have no reason to believe that the words the NT gospels attribute to Jesus are verbatim quotes from his speeches.
Also, the consensus of the Church Fathers in Antiquity can by no means be translated into a consensus of modern historians.
Parton believes that the "four gospels" are "genuine", while modern Bible scholars regard the Gospel of John as historically highly dubious (that is, Jesus from the Gospel of John bears little resemblance to the historical Jesus). tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
@ Jundonbee: Your edit is both WP:FRINGE and WP:OR. tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any credible scholars other than Ehrman who make the argument the passage in question was "altered." The γεννησις reading is used by the Church Fathers and many early manuscipts. I think this citation should either be removed or at least clarified to be Ehrman's opinion. Divus303 ( talk) 18:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I have devoted all my attention so far to textual variants involving Jesus’ relationship to Joseph in Luke and John. Joseph is never called Jesus’ “father” or “parent” in Matthew’s Gospel, but given the circumstance that Matthew also records a birth story, one might expect to find some kinds of orthodox corruption here as well. We have already seen that the scribe of the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, apparently through carelessness, presents a potentially adoptionistic variation of Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew 1:16. It is striking that other witnesses supply different variations of precisely the same verse, and that these variations serve rather well to stress orthodox notions concerning Jesus’ birth. The text of most manuscripts reads “Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom (fern.) was born Jesus, who is called the Christ.” But several witnesses of the so-called Caesarean text read “Jacob begot Joseph, to whom being betrothed, a virgin Mary begot Jesus, who is called the Christ” (Θ f13 OL arm [syrc]). The Caesarean changes are patently orthodox: now the text explicitly calls Mary a “virgin” (Image) and it no longer calls Joseph her “husband” (Image) but her “betrothed” (ImageImage). These changes serve not only to keep the text in line with the rest of the story (esp. vv. 18–25), but also to eliminate the possibility of misconstrual. Mary was not yet living with a man as his wife, she was merely his betrothed; and she was still a virgin, even though pregnant.69 It should be added that there is little reason to suppose the Caesarean reading to be original. Not only does it lack early and widespread support, it also fails to pass muster on the grounds of transcriptional probabilities. Given the story of verses 18-25, who would have wanted to change the perfectly innocuous Caesarean text of verse 16 into one that could be understood as problematic (by calling Joseph Mary’s Image and by eliminating the word “virgin”)?70 This Caesarean reading is thus better explained as an early modification of the other, an orthodox corruption that serves to circumvent an adoptionistic construal of the text.71
46. See the discussions of Bruce M. Metzger, “The Text of Matthew 1:16”; id., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2–7; Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, 61–64; and Alexander Globe, “Some Doctrinal Variants in Matthew 1 and Luke 2, and the Authority of the Neutral Text,” 63–66.
69. The term image of course, could simply mean “young woman” or “maiden.” But in the writings of the early church, especially when the term came to be applied to Jesus’ mother, it took on the modern connotations of the word “virgin,” designating, that is, a woman who had never engaged in sexual intercourse. See LPGL 1037–38.
70. In addition to the works cited in note 46 above (i.e., Metzger, Brown, and Globe), see the penetrating discussion of Theodor Zahn, Das Evangelium des Matthäus, 66–67, n. 34.
71. Other variants that function to protect the notion of the virgin birth in Matthew 1 modify passages that speak of Mary as Joseph’s wife (”wife” is changed to “betrothed” or “companion” in Syriac, Ethiopic, and Diatesseronic witnesses of Matt 1:20; it is changed to “Mary” or “her” in Syriac, Coptic, and Latin witnesses of Matt 1:24); so too descriptions of Joseph as Mary’s husband are modified in the Syriac traditions of Matthew 1:19. On these, compare Globe, “Some Doctrinal Variants.” Globe sees similar forces at work behind the changes of Matthew 1:18 (omit “before they came together”) and 1:25 (change “he did not know her until . . .”), only here, it is the orthodox desire to preserve the notion of Mary’s perpetual virginity that is at work. The confluence of versional support (e.g., Syriac and Latin as independent traditions) demonstrates an early date for such modifications. A similar motivation may lay behind the omission of image from Luke 2:7 in manuscript W. Now Jesus is not called Mary’s firstborn son.
— Ehrman, loc. cit.